Shell Report Predicts Peak Oil Now Or Soon, Ponders ‘Depression 2.0

[Purveyor]

Source: RAWSTORY

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011 -- 11:43 am

The industrial doomsday scenario put forward by peak oil theorists isn't just for far flung voices on the Internet anymore.

Peak oil is not a problem of Earth's supplies: there's plenty of oil in a variety of forms. The difficulty is in how much energy it takes to recover and process it. And if it hasn't happened already, soon the demand for energy commodities will soar past existing production capacity and crash headlong into the brick wall of declining discoveries.

The economic effects of this could be devastating to the human populations within industrialized societies, to say the least.

That's not just the line from Noam Chomsky, Michael Rupert and Dmitry Orlov: the second largest company in the world, Shell International, a major player in the energy commodities industries, is saying it too.

In a recent "Signals & Signposts" report by Shell, forecasting energy scenarios through 2050, the oil giant predicted a growing volatility in the price of oil and a coming period of "extraordinary opportunity or misery."

As the demand for oil buts up against actual production and remaining reserves, the climbing price of oil will cause the gross domestic product of all nations to decline, they predict.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/shell-report-predicts-peak-oil-now-or-soon-ponders-depression-2-0/

[AtheistCrusader]

1. We might actually be ok. If we move faster.

US Oil Consumption is down almost 2 million bbls over the last two years. Technically, we peaked on the consumer side, in 2007/2008. And that was at $3.X a gallon. About where it is today.

But China's demand is rising, very fast. Be interesting to see if we can keep dropping our consumption, but all bets are off on how fast China's consumption will rise.

Anyone have any good estimates?

[SkyDaddy7]

2. We are the global oil pigs...

So, I doubt we change our habits until we literally are forced to! I always have said the rest of western society will be zipping around in high speed rail & electric cars & we will still be arguing with the "Drill Baby Drill" crowd!

And now I have actually seen folks here on DU crying about Obama pushing high speed rail. But that is just the way we Americans are extremely short sighted, selfish & i guess not very smart collectively. SAD!


Happy Valentines Day to my fellow Atheist!

[slackmaster]

11. Trains - How Do They Work?

[Javaman]

12. Shush! What did I tell you about bringing facts into a discussion?

Don't you know that the power for trains will come from hopeful wishes?

Come on, everyone knows that!

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Quite a lot of trains run on railway electrification systems.

Even the higher speed stuff.

[slackmaster]

18. Electricity - Where Does It Come From?

[SkyDaddy7]

26. I saw your subject line and was thinking "what?"

Then I clicked on it and saw those IDIOTS & started laughing!!

Thanks!!

[Javaman]

20. just how are you going to generate that electricity?

Concidering that half HALF of all this nations power comes from coal.

[plumbob]

28. 25% of the electricity in Texas came from the wind several months last year.

And that's before the triple new transmission lines are installed to capture the thousands sitting idle with no place to send electricity.

It wasn't the wind plants that froze up in the last cold weather. It was the coal and natural gas plants.

[Javaman]

32. I'm part of that 25%. My home runs on wind power here in Austin.

But if there is no wind, our power falls back on coal for our electricty.

so if you have a day with no wind, how are we supposed to power the electrical grid for rail travel?

[plumbob]

36. There are no days without 2 mph winds in Ector County.

That's what is required. WalMart owns a wind farm here that supplies all the needs for 1/3 the WalMarts in Texas. Duke Energy is building megabatteries based on sodium sulfur technology to store extra energy when the wind blows harder as well.

Their first commercials installation went to Presidio. That one battery can supply the entire town for 8 hours.

It's all coming together. Plus, when we finish the 3 transmission lines that are now being built, an extra 2000 generators already built and shut in because they produce more than the lines can now handle come on, things will get even better.

Out west of I35, we live in the Saudi Arabia of wind.

[Javaman]

43. People love to that "saudi arabia" quasi fact...

the reality is, we have to build a hell of a lot more wind generators to match even one cities power use.

Right now, wind power in Texas accounts for 15% of it's needs.

We still have a very long way to go.

[plumbob]

49. Peak generation has been higher than that:

ERCOT recorded a new wind output record of 7,227 megawatts (MW) at 7:16 am on Dec. 11, 2010, representing 25.8 percent of the load at the time. The new peak beat the 2009 record by almost 1,000 MW. ERCOT has 9,528 MW of installed wind generation – the highest in the US and the fifth highest in the world.

http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/2011/nr01-10-11

As soon as the three transmission lines under construction are done, output will rise 33% because we can use the installed generators that are currently shut down. In five years, wind will be 50% of all power in Texas.

[NickB79]

50. Without some form of storage, peak generation means very little

Unless you're ok with rolling black-outs at all hours of the day....

[plumbob]

56. Didn't read the post, did you?

Megabatteries with sodium sulfur technology are being built now. The first one in Texas was installed in Presidio recently. It could provide 100% of the power for the entire town for 8 full hours.

Duke Energy is building these, and they will just get better. Plans are already in for more storage on the grid itself.

The plants that went down in the recent weather were coal and natural gas, not wind.

[NickB79]

70. The pop. of Presidio is 4167. Not hard to build a battery to supply 8 hr for a village

Some research into the Presidio battery installation reveals a couple of interesting facts:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/texas-town-turns-monster-battery-backup-power

-The battery provides UP TO 8 hr of electricity. That wording makes me think that 8 hr isn't at peak demand, and if power failed during peak hr the battery would have substantially less time.

-This system cost $25 million total, or $6000 per resident of Presidio. If you scaled something like this up for the city of Houston, for example, your cost run well into the BILLIONS.


Supplying storage with this method looks good on paper, until you consider the scale of the problem. Scaling up to supply even one large city in the US can be a budget-buster without substantial price reductions in the very near future.

[plumbob]

74. Why is it okay for a coal power plant to cost 3-4 BILLION dollars,

a nuclear power plant to cost 6-8 BILLION dollars, a natural gas power plant to cost 1-2 BILLION, and have them fail when it gets cold, producing no power at all when the incoming water lines freeze, but somehow we cannot afford some billions for a battery backup which simply works regardless of weather?

Consider the fuel cost of wind generators. Zero. That's why they're the future.

Keep breathing the crap from the others, and keep sending the deadly nuclear waste to my backyard where it can contaminate my water supply. I prefer reliable, clean power with a backup in place that will work.

The choice is: buy something that simply isn't reliable, produces poison, and burns expensive fuel; or buy something that works, burns nothing, produces no toxins.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I thought we were talking about peak oil?

[Javaman]

31. Okay, if you want to go there...

Most of the freight trains in the US run on diesel fuel.

With peak oil the price of diesel skyrockets. Suddenly, it becomes very expensive to ship anything by train.

So again, if we are going to then electrify the rail system in this nation, how are we going to power the electrical generators to run that rail system?

As I stated, 50% of this nations electrical power comes from coal. Most of which, is used for things like powering electric trains.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Diesel can be produced from non-petroleum sources.

Costs will rise, but only so high.

Specifically, coal can be turned into synthetic diesel in large quantities, and gasoline in smaller quantities with the byproduct being diesel. So we'll never be OUT of petroleum products until all the oil and all the coal are gone.

And of course, there is always biodiesel.

Yes, costs will go very high, but there are certain energy minimums we can always produce, without fear, which we will not go below. Trains will move. Shipping will move. Homes will be heated, etc. If it shoves us quickly onto alternative fuels, I can think of worse fates.

[Javaman]

34. Yeah, synthetic diesal...

and what do we do in the mean time until production of any measure ramps up?

The amount of synth diesel needed to run the nations freight system would stagger the current production.

Ain't gonna happen for a long time. Especially considering just how "progressive" this nation has been in using any sort of alt fuels.

And the fallacy of bio-diesel production on any scale is right up there with ethanol.

Briefly, it's a mono-crop. As a result, just like any corn production, (because that is were we would get it from. Any diesel from algae based sources is 10's of years away at the earliest), it causes massive issues with the soil. Right now, GMO mono-crops destroy soil nutrients. Over use of pesticides, pumping ammonia into the ground to increase growth, not allowing the soil to go fallow, creating of super weeds via over use of round up ready weed killers and lastly and most important: erosion, are all destroying our soil. What you never hear about is what Monsanto and their like are trying like hell to do to fix the problem, because they aren't. They just buy up more land and leave the destroyed land behind.

And if you think that Monsanto and Agra-Corp wouldn't be growing the feed stocks for any sort of "bio-diesel" I have a bridge to sell you.

Given that fact and how you say, "OUT of petroleum products", leads me to another point, do you know what the term "peak oil" even means?


You say: "Yes, costs will go very high, but there are certain energy minimums we can always produce, without fear, which we will not go below."

And who pays those costs? We the people do. The subsidies that are currently doled out to the the various ag corps are insane, on top of that, do you honestly believe that if we switched from oil, that the oil subsidies that the oil corps currently enjoy, wouldn't be switched over to the ag corps? Basically double downing on their profits? I have yet another bridge to sell you.

Do you even know what ERORI means? Currently, just on ethanol along, it takes the equivalent of 4 barrels of oil energy to extract 1 barrel of oil energy equivalent from any acre of bio fuel crop.

You say: "Trains will move. Shipping will move. Homes will be heated, etc. If it shoves us quickly onto alternative fuels, I can think of worse fates."

Again, I ask how?

You think there is some magic solution to fill the gap that this government has allowed to get larger and larger each and every year.

I have done a massive amount of research on just this topic for a documentary I have been working on for the past 4 years.

I have only gone into about 1% of what is actually going on out there. It is fucking frightening.

If you honestly believe that we, as a nation, can suddenly fill our fuel needs with bio-fuel, you, my friend, are grossly misinformed.

At best, at the very very best, bio-fuels will fill, if we are lucky, if we farm all the land for bio-fuels and not grow any food at all, will produce 30% of our needs. This is with the very latest tech in agriculture. And it also appears that you don't take into climate change. If we changed over to non-fossil fueled tech tomorrow, it would still take at least 1000 years for the climate to stabilize. In the mean time, the various bio-fuel crops you pin your hopes on will be subject to droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc which are increasing in number and intensity due to climate change.

If you have done any amount of gardening, organic or otherwise, you will know how you are completely at the mercy of nature. You can save all the water you want, you can fertilize, weed and rotate all you want, but if you get hit with a drought, or massive floods, or an intense freeze, no matter how hard you try, your crops are lost. I speak from personal experience, I lost everything this past winter due to a very freak hard cold here in Austin.

So please, I ask kindly, do some research, it's no where as easy as you believe it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. The changeover will not be sudden.

Nor did I say it would be painless, or easy. I think it will suck, but the end result will ultimately be worth it. If there is a depression in the meantime as a result, so be it, that is the cost of our delay and denial of reality.

I think you are reading something into what I posted that I did not state.

The changeover can also be bolstered by our strategic petroleum reserve. 4 separate storage sites, plus the strategic heating oil reserve, that is currently being changed over from high sulphur, to ultra-low sulphur oil. Domestic production can be ramped up for a time, and there is quite a bit of conservation that people are simply not doing right now, because energy prices are too low.

There are other products that produce biodiesel, such as rapeseed, where much of the process of crushing and refining can be done with alternative power such as hydroelectric or wind. Your concern about fertilizers is valid though, as it requires very high nitrogen boosting fertilizers. A problem, indeed, but there are processes around that that integrate with our food supply that may offset this problem, AND offset the demand on cropland for fuel production.


My point was that even the end of cheap oil will not come overnight. There are countervailing technologies, and reserves to help us transition onto other fuels. Yes, all of them come at a cost. Indeed, high fuel prices are the only mechanism that has EVER truly encouraged conservation and conversion to or exploration of clean alternative energies.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Javaman]

42. Where do I begin...

Do you know how long the strategic oil reserve has in it? Only enough, if we do hard core conservation: 3 months.

Cooking oil is not even equatable to our situation.

As far as trying to fill the sweet crude need, we can't, sweet crude is running at a premium. The only type of oil left in the world in abundance is sour crude.

Domestic oil production, right now is running at 85%. To "Ramp it up" as you say, is not realistic. From exportation, to discovery, to production, on the average is 10 years. 7 years, if we push really hard and we have a minimal time for exploration. If you are talking about the "reserves" in Alaska. There is no hard evidence to the amount that is in the ground. On top of that, there is only, roughly speaking 4 months each year when exploration can happen due to weather conditions. I'm not even going to go into the maintenance issues that are required in those temps.

Domestic oil production is roughly 10 million barrels. We export, depending on demand, anywhere from 10-15 million barrels. "Ramping up" won't amount to much at all.

Conservation has nothing to do with energy prices. Right now, we could conserve up to 1/3 of our fossil fuel use without even noticing a difference. It just requires leadership and the willingness to do it.

Rapeseed production goes back to my original statement in my previous post. It's a mono-crop. In our chase to fill our power needs, we will destroy the land in the process.

Hydroelectric and wind are great, but still require fossil fuels for them to be manufactured and built. Which, I might add has a huge carbon footprint.

"Your concern about fertilizers is valid though, as it requires very high nitrogen boosting fertilizers. A problem, indeed, but there are processes around that that integrate with our food supply that may offset this problem, AND offset the demand on cropland for fuel production."

I would love to hear about these "processes" because during my research, I have found nothing that "creates" nitrogen or phosphorous in sufficient amounts to offset our needs.

If you are talking about sustainable farming, that is a whole other issue. But given the fact that the various agricultural corporations hold the lion share of farm-able land in the US, I don't see them, any time soon, changing over to sustainable farming on a large scale. Considering how Monsanto makes money hand over fist with their methods of roping in farmers to use their seeds, they aren't going to suddenly promote the "saving of seeds". Especially, when they have an on going practice of destroying that same industry.

"My point was that even the end of cheap oil will not come overnight."

You might want to rethink that. It's become glaringly apparent that you don't know what the term "peak oil" means. I suggest reading up on it, rather than just running with the concept.

I have no problem with the belief that we humans are of an inventive nature, however, anything that is to replace oil has to be a sufficient energy carrier. Nothing in the world holds as much bang for it's buck as fossil fuels, especially oil. It's concentrated energy. I single barrel of oil yields more energy then it's content size.

Also, it yields a variety of uses.

Much like the last run up in oil prices, the first industry to fail was the airline industry, then it was the shipping (both truck and rail).

When you sit down and do the math, each barrel of oil yields roughly 19 gallons of gasoline. Now extrapolate that over roughly 23 million barrels (our current use per day). This doesn't even account for diesel and kerosene. (rail, truck and airplane).

The remainder has a variety of uses, not the least of which is ocean cargo ships and household heating oil.

So while you are of the "so be it" crew, tell that to the people who live in the northern climes to "suck it up", when they can't get their heating fuel. Which I might add is call "bunker fuel". There are several grades. Some are used for ocean based ships, other grades are used for heating fuel.

We have lived far too long in this nation on hope and prayers because our elected officials continue to hit the gas pedal toward the cliff. As a result of their inaction, disbelief and ignorance, we the people are going to suffer long and hard.

President Carter saw the writing on the wall 30 years ago, he knew what needed to be done. But with each passing president, they put off an actionable plan to transition. What we should have done 30 years ago is not coming back in a horror show sort of fashion due to inaction.

While you and others have this belief that we will make a transition with "some hardship", I can tell you this, this problem, that I have come to know very closely via my research, is so huge, so incredible staggering, that trying to convince yourself that we are smart people and we will come up with something to "fix it" is frankly, to put it politely, unreal.

While there will be various "inventions" and "fixes", the ability, with short and expensive energy supplies, to bring them up to speed, in a timely fashion, has long since passed.

I live in Texas, we had rolling blackouts because the state wasn't able to handle the cold weather. The energy capacity of the states infrastructure and it being able to meets its needs failed. Period.

This is a classic example of what we are heading into.

But people go on as if nothing happened.

The worlds population is getting larger daily. As such, more fossil fuels are in demand.

In 1960 45% of the nations on the earth used oil for power and transportation. Today, 85%. The remaining 15% also use oil but in a much less intensive fashion.

There will always be oil and it will be around for a very long time, but the good stuff is just about gone and there won't be enough of the sour stuff to meet demand.

As long as china's growth continues at 5% year on year and India's now ramping up, it's only going to get worse.

The two issues at hand are, we American use to much. Too much of everything. The second is: in order to transition off of fossil fuel, it has to be a global effort. Us switching doesn't do a damn thing. Some other nation will take up the slack (read china). The worlds economy is so interconnected now, if china fails, it brings down the rest of us. If India fails, it brings down the rest of us. On and on.

Until those two vastly complex things happen, nothing is going to change.

[DCBob]

45. +1... unfortunately I believe you are right on all accounts..

Its definitely scary. The only hope I see is if hit some technological breakthroughs on some alternative energy source like hydrogen or solar or clean nuclear and then develop it as fast as possible like a Manhattan project.

[sendero]

55. Don't worry..

.... a skittle-shitting unicorn will save us :)

What most people understand about the energy they use every day wouldn't fill a thimble. DU is no exception.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. You might be surprised.

For energy consumption, petroleum wise, my consumption is probably highest in foodstuffs. I allot myself 10$ worth of gas a week, to commute. That's it. That's two trips two and from work, if I carefully regulate my speed on the freeway.

I force myself to bike, and run the rest of the time.

I am saddened that we will wait till it is painful and unavoidable, but I think we will rise to the challenge.

[sendero]

60. Self rationing..

... of your energy use doesn't imply any kind of heightened understanding of energy production or the physics of energy use.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. That wasn't the point.

The point was I keep my motive petroleum consumption well below my food consumption. And that's something most people don't even think about, how much petrol goes into bringing food to our tables. It's a total unknown. (Though there have been good efforts lately to bring this issue to the fore)

Most of my home electricity comes directly from hydroelectric. Of course, consuming it means I consume power that might be otherwise used to offset coal/gas power production in neighboring states...

But yeah, I'm pretty aware of where my power, and consumed goods come from, and the impact in producing them.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I disagree only in severity.

I principally agree with this: "Until those two vastly complex things happen, nothing is going to change."

The only thing that will motivate, is uncontrolled price increases on oil-derived products and energy. It has to come, or people simply will not begin to chew on solving this problem.

Nothing will change until reality cannot be denied. Sad, but true.

[NickB79]

47. See post #29. Adaptations will not be fast in the face of such a huge problem

Specifically, read the Hirsch Report that the US Dept. of Energy already commissioned.

If we wait until Peak Oil hits (and we have, because we're now at Peak Oil), we're looking at 20 yr of liquid fuel disruptions and the societal unrest that that entails, even with a crash program to scale up production of all non-petroleum alternatives.

[snooper2]

48. We could bring back steam engines :)

maybe even use the waste water from the extra nuke plants we'll need :)

[Javaman]

68. For small use, I think steam would be a great idea.

but then we fall into what to use to heat the water.

I have seen various solar set ups do it. That might be the way.

[Yavin4]

52. You Said It Brother

Was just in a snit with another DUer over high speed rail.

[bananas]

16. Leading Peak Oil Theorist Colin Campbell now says Oil Won't Break $100

You asked, "Anyone have any good estimates?"
I don't know if these are good estimates,
maybe they are bad estimates,
but they are estimates: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x274189

[NickB79]

23. He also fails to discuss the impact of China and India on oil demand

He only states that oil demand has peaked in developed nations, which leaves out 3/4 of the world's population where demand is growing by leaps and bounds.

[Thunderstruck]

63. He said that in April, and this was just a week or so before your referenced post:

Oil tops $100 mark amid fears that Egypt crisis will lead to the closure of the Suez Canal


Oil has climbed steadily from $70 a barrel last autumn

Motorists face paying even more to fill up their cars after the price of oil hit the symbolic $100-a-barrel mark yesterday.

Amid fears that the crisis in Egypt could lead to the closure of the Suez Canal, Brent crude prices rose sharply in London to $101.08.

Although the canal is currently operating normally, traders are fearful that supplies of key commodities could be disrupted.

It is the first time prices have risen above $100 since October 2008 and came as David Cameron effectively committed the Government to introducing a ‘fair fuel stabiliser’ to help cash-strapped motorists.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352371/Egypt-crisis-Oil-tops-100-mark-amid-Suez-Canal-closure-fears.html#ixzz1EBWaKwIz

It's backed off of that since but is widely expected, despite Campbell's (and I don't know what his problem is with his recent comments) opinion, to go back above $100 at some point. One thing is clear about peak oil symptoms that have been long predicted and that is that oil price volatility is one of those symptoms. Campbell knows this.

[GliderGuider]

37. Here's my projection of Chindia oil demand to 2020

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Production trend is domestic

India/China production, yes?

That is going to change the playing field, most certainly.

[GliderGuider]

41. Yes, it is. Now here's the kicker...

First off, here are my projections for a post-peak oil supply at various rates of decline, starting next year:



20 years from now the world will probably be pumping about half of what it is today.

The kicker, however, goes by the unassuming name of the net oil export problem. Don't let the name fool you - as problems go it's a doozie. It works like this: The international oil market only contains oil that is surplus to the producers' domestic consumption needs. As their domestic consumption climbs and production falls, the surplus they have available to export can decline much faster than their production, and can eventually go to zero, at which pooint they become net importers instead of net exporters. This has happened to Egypt, and was one of the precursors to the revolution:



This is in fact already happening to the world oil market as a whole:



The bump at the top of that line represents the peak of the global oil market in 2006. Even though the world's oil production is simply flat at the moment, exports are already in decline because the domestic demand in producing nations like China is still increasing. Global net exports will decline faster than production, and can go to zero just as Egypt's did. Unfortunately, the world as a whole can't become a net importer, since there's nowhere else to import oil from. The outcome looks like this:



So despite the fact that the world will still be pumping over 40 million barrels of crude oil a day in 2025, there may be NO oil available on the world market.

My conclusion is that within 10 years all bets are off regarding oil prices and resource wars.

[Thunderstruck]

64. Your work is always solid, Glider. I've been following your work on this

topic for years in many venues.

Thanks for all you do to educate on the issue of Peak Oil and overshoot/limits to growth, etc.

[dd2003]

67. if only oil prices were based on demand

we all know that is not true

[Citizen Worker]

3. Peak oil=war machine stopped in its tracks.

[Doremus]

7. Sadly, there will *always* be enough oil to have wars.

Who else but the military will be able to afford $20/gal?

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Nope.

Hell, we'd invade canada before that happened.

Most military equipment can run on multi-fuel sources, including biodiesel.



Sorry to rain on your idea, it would be nice. But not going to happen.

[Javaman]

13. Sorry to burst that bubble...

there were wars long before there was usable oil in any quantity.

If there is one thing you can bank on, humans will always find new and creative ways to kill one another, with or without oil.

[slackmaster]

19. No, it will just mean that we need to assert our mineral rights against a few countries

The ones who were dumb enough to put their countries on top of our oil.

[Roland99]

4. One would think the oil giants would *want* to expand into new types of energy

lest they be tomorrow's horse buggy firms.

[Nordmadr]

5. While our government seems inclined to prep us for third

world status. It isn't an accident that they are doing it.

[blackspade]

6. So now the media will act like this is a new revelation?

Many of us have known about this for years.

[ronnie624]

35. Yeah, but only the utterances of big corporations carry any weight.

It practically says so in the article:

That's not just the line from Noam Chomsky, Michael Rupert and Dmitry Orlov: the second largest company in the world, Shell International, a major player in the energy commodities industries, is saying it too.

[blackspade]

46. Indeed.

[tridim]

8. That's good for at least another 50 cents per gallon pure profit for big-oil.

The speculator-manipulators probably had an orgasm after reading the report.

[shanti]

10. march

is when i heard that the bottom is going to drop out, as in DEPRESSION. :(

[Javaman]

14. from where? nt

[shanti]

15. sorry

can't remember, it may even have been on DU since it's where i get most of my info. take it with a grain of salt, as i do.

[Javaman]

21. No worries. Personally, I'm waiting on for the rapture on May 21st. LOL nt

[FLPanhandle]

22. Disagree with the doomsday scenarios people paint.

Peak oil will be a major stimulus to alternative energy efforts/industries/jobs. If the US can wean ourselves off oil, our trade imbalance will improve immediately (so much of our nations wealth is sent over to the middle east).

Granted it won't be easy, but it won't be Depression 2.0 either.

[NickB79]

24. We would need a decade of WWII-level spending just to get started

To seriously transition away from declining fossil fuels in the US.

And with the current crop of politicians at the helm, do you really think they'll authorize trillions of dollars on alt. energy investments? They're already CUTTING spending on alternative energy!

If the US were run by rational, intelligent people, I'd agree with you that Peak Oil wouldn't necessarily imply another Great Depression. Unfortunately, we aren't run by rational, intelligent people.

[FLPanhandle]

27. Nothing like a kick in the pants to wake politicians up though.

Maybe instead of war spending, we'd get a decade of WWII spending on this. I agree that no one will accuse our existing politicians rational or intelligent, but I have to believe in a crisis they'd react. They are good at reacting, just not planning ahead.

[NickB79]

29. By the time the crisis hits, though, we'll already be in a depression

The US Dept. of Energy already commissioned a study in 2005 to look at this very problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

One of the key conclusions was:

"Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.

* Waiting until production peaks would leave the world with a liquid fuel deficit for 20 years.
* Initiating a crash program 10 years before peaking leaves a liquid fuels shortfall of a decade.
* Initiating a crash program 20 years before peaking could avoid a world liquid fuels shortfall."

Waiting until the crisis hits means 20 years of fuel rationing, food rationing, job destruction, etc, all the wonderful things associated with a Great Depression. And that is WITH a crash program to replace liquid fuels as fast as possible.

The reality is that scaling up to replace millions of barrels of oil per day is a massive undertaking, one that requires substantial time to complete.

And if the OP is correct, we're already at Peak Oil, so we don't have 10-20 years to initiate a crash program to avoid the pain.

On edit: this also assumes a strong, well-respected federal government to guide and implement all of these programs in the best ways possible. With the current uptick in anti-government sentiment brewing on the right, I suspect that many of the programs needed to guide our country through the worst of Peak Oil will be seen as socialist/communist/whatever term the Teabaggers want to throw around at the time, and they will fight it tooth and nail.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. That presumes that a) there ARE alternatives that can provide as much energy...

as we currently get from oil (there aren't); and that b) the shift to these alternatives will be effected without significant disruption due to the need to change existing habits and infrastructure (it won't).

[sendero]

57. Our ENTIRE economy..

... from the food we eat, the clothes we wear, our transportation, EVERYTHING is based on CHEAP ENERGY and CHEAP ENERGY will soon be a thing of the past.

Our economy is hanging by a thread AS WE SPEAK and it will take ALMOST NOTHING to push it off the cliff. Rising oil prices just might do it.

[GliderGuider]

40. The whole report hinges on Peak Oil, and they never actually mention it.

We are there. This is it. We've been on a classical "undulating plateau" of supply throughout the last 6 years.



I expect to see us roll off the right-hand edge of the plateau starting later this year. After that it's likely we'll see the world supply declining by 4% per year within 4-5 years.

[50000feet]

62. Glider, I agree with your premises

though tend to the opinion that production won't hit decline within your time-frame. All stops will be pulled on drilling, and Iraq very possibly will be pumping 10-12 mbpd in 6-10 years. That amount of oil should extend the plateau for, oh, say, another 10 years.

[GliderGuider]

69. Production isn't the only thing that counts - especially if you live in an oil importing nation

Global net exports are already falling due to rising consumption within the oil exporting nations.
As a result, during a production plateau or decline the world's world net exports have the potential to dry up completely.

It has happened in Egypt, among others:



And it's happening in the world:



It's an issue that importers like the USA should be very conscious of.

[Thunderstruck]

65. I first heard of the "undulating plateau" at the beginning of 2006. We were discussing

it on LATOC and PO.com and The Oil Drum back then. Now, looking at your chart, it turns out we were right and we were at that time right at the beginning of the plateau.

It was/is also called the "bumpy plateau".


Edit: Numlock key was on.

[Crop Circle]

71. I'm hoping for no sooner than 2012 - 2015!

There's more preparation the wife and I need to take. Nonetheless, I do believe like you'll that we'll be sliding off the plateau THIS decade.

[Crop Circle]

72. I'm hoping for no sooner than 2012 - 2015!

There's more preparation the wife and I need to take. Nonetheless, I do believe like you'll that we'll be sliding off the plateau THIS decade.

[davekriss]

44. A good thread on Peak Oil running for last 8 years....

Started in June 2003:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/45251-Peak-Oil-(was-quot-petroleum-geolgist-explains-US-war-policy-quot-)

Take a peak, um, peek.

D

[defendandprotect]

54. Interesting -- also keep in mind that it takes OIL to run a MIC ....

Thom Hartmann noted that MIC uses 80% of our oil --

Iow, OIL is a "national security issue" --

Others say that alternative means of energy have simply been suppressed over 60 years

or more -- I can find that believable!

We need to be working on Solar batteries, for one --

Who knows what more has been suppressed!


With no planning -- which seems to be the case -- we are left with immediate death

and disminishment of the population not by very pleasant means!!

Return to warmer climates -- though Global Warming could be making much of the planet

unlivable soon?

Human stupidity -- and especially capitalism -- are suicidal!!

[Yavin4]

51. And Folks Want To Kill High Speed Rail

Wow, $10/gallon for gas is going to be real fun.

[defendandprotect]

53. We can no longer burn fossil fuels -- we've known that for 50 years now!!

We should have been working on alternative energy in all that time and getting

rid of the gasoline driven auto --

That our species may disappear seems no great loss to nature!

That the planet may disappear does!!

Capitalism is suicidal -- and we're 50 years too late in responding to Global Warming -- !!

[area51]

66. Actually,

at 30½% unemployment, we're already in the 2nd Great Depression.

[robertpaulsen]

73. I encourage everyone to view the ongoing series of videos at The Nation.

Peak Oil and a Changing Climate
The Nation
January 5, 2011

The scientific community has long agreed that our dependence on fossil fuels inflicts massive damage on the environment and our health, while warming the globe in the process. But beyond the damage these fuels cause to us now, what will happen when the world's supply of oil runs out?

Peak Oil is the point at which petroleum production reaches its greatest rate just before going into perpetual decline. In “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate,” a new video series from The Nation and On The Earth productions, radio host Thom Hartmann explains that the world will reach peak oil within the next year if it hasn’t already. As a nation, the United States reached peak oil in 1974, after which it became a net oil importer.

Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, Nicole Foss, Richard Heinberg and the other scientists, researchers and writers interviewed throughout “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate” describe the diminishing returns our world can expect as it deals with the consequences of peak oil even as it continues to pretend it doesn’t exist. These experts predict substantially increased transportation costs, decreased industrial production, unemployment, hunger and social chaos as the supplies of the fuels on which we rely dwindle and eventually disappear.

Chomsky urges us to anticipate the official response to peak oil based on how corporations, news organizations and other institutions have responded to global warming: obfuscation, spin and denial. James Howard Kunstler says that we cannot survive peak oil unless we “come up with a consensus about reality that is consistent with the way things really are.” This documentary series hopes to help build that consensus. Click http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate">here to watch the introductory video, and check back here for new videos each Wednesday.

more...

http://www.thenation.com/article/157434/peak-oil-and-changing-climate?rel=emailNation